Miss-ing out on the world

<div class="section1"><div class="Normal"><script language="javascript">doweshowbellyad=0; </script></div> <div align="left" style="position:relative; left: -2"><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" align="left" border="1" width="32.1%"> <colgroup> <col width="100.0%" /> </colgroup> <tr valign="top"> <td width="100.0%" colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="" valign:="" top="" background-color:="" f3f3f3=""> <div class="Normal"><img src="/photo/599265.cms" alt="/photo/599265.cms" border="0" /></div> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td width="100.0%" colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="" valign:="" top="" background-color:="" f3f3f3=""> <div class="Normal"><span style="" font-size:="">Discriminated against? Lakshmi Pandit: </span></div> </td> </tr> </table></div> <div class="Normal"><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold="">Quota? Here’s another demand.At least 33 per cent reservation for the married in every sphere of life. This many will concur is a group of largely battered, suffering humans that has to live with the ignominy of being thrown out of even beauty pageants. And we talk discrimination?</span><br /><br /><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold="">In all the brouhaha over married models in the last few days, everyone trashed the hapless Lakshmi Pandit for having fudged her marital status. Why, even her beau, one Siddharth Mishra, will not get to contest in a male pageant for similar reasons. The jury is still out on whether the Miss-India-that-wasn''t was married or not, but a group of committed citizens led by yours truly are seriously considering legal recourse. </span><br /><br /><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold="">You have minorities rights and dalit rights and OBC rights and women''s rights. Even gay rights. So you have quotas for them (save the last and they are struggling too). In the government, and political parties are now promising reservation in the private sector. You have the newly privileged crawling out of the woodwork. But no quota for the married. </span></div> <div align="left" style="position:relative; left: -6"><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" align="left" border="1" width="34.7%"> <colgroup> <col width="100.0%" /> </colgroup> <tr valign="top"> <td width="100.0%" colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="" valign:="" top="" background-color:=""> <div class="Normal"><span style="" color:="" ffffff="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold="">RELATED STORIES</span></div> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td width="100.0%" colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="" valign:="" top="" background-color:="" fbfbfb=""> <div class="Normal"><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold=""><a href="http://thetimesofindia.online/articleshow/595243.cms" target="_blank">No Miss please, we''re Mumbaikars</a></span><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold=""></span><br /><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold=""> </span><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold=""><a href="/articleshow/592860.cms" target="_blank">Miss India World returns her title</a></span></div> </td> </tr> </table></div> <div class="Normal"><br /><br /><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold="">There is, for instance, no earthly reason why Lakshmi Pandit should be anathema in a beauty contest just because she is married. Because she lied, absolutely. But because she is married? If she is lissom and beautiful and deserving of a crown - all things same, she did after all trounce the others - how does her being married change that? </span><br /><br /><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold="">Only that she cannot, technically be called ''Miss'' India? In any case, even the more archaic are now dropping that form of address (except for little girls in pigtails and pink ribbons) in favour of the less discriminating Ms. But does the little detail of her having wedded actually change any of her vital stats?</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="" font-size:="" font-weight:="" bold=""><formid=367815></formid=367815></span><br /><br /></div> </div><div class="section2"><div class="Normal"><br />This is no one-sided debate. Their detractors, all of them blissfully unfettered, look at them pityingly and point out that there is a separate contest for the married. But I have a counter. These contests do not have the same status as the cutting-edge beauty pageants for the Misses. Those are the ones that lead to instant fame, modelling contracts, film roles and the chance to say you want to be like Mother Teresa. Mrs India or World or what have you sounds like a school fete prize for the best Mum.<br /><br />Would you condone separate wells for drinking water for different castes in a village? However, clean and healthy, it''s not in the spirit of things. So it is for say, a 22-year-old, beautiful accomplished woman whose only minus is that she is married. She has the age, the grace, the qualifications to wear the mainstream crown. Why shouldn''t she get to just because she got hitched? <br /><br />For a beginning, let’s demand 33 per cent reservation for the married in all beauty pageants. That necessarily means that of the top three, at least one must be married and not ashamed to admit it. Since men can be Mr whether married or not, the women among us also demand a common honorific - Ms is quite nice, thank you.<br /><br /><formid=367815></formid=367815></div> </div>